Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on December 12, 2005, 09:34:34 PM
-
It looks like the UN has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran. Its no wonder some of us do not trust their judgement. I certainly hope Bolton can push through the reforms he is working on, but I doubt it.
(http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/images/resources/list_4/02-m-map.jpg)
This map was prominently displayed by the UN on November 29, 2005 at a public gathering at UN Headquarters, in the presence of all top three UN officials, the Secretary General, and the Presidents of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. It purports to be a "map of Palestine." Israel, a UN member state for 56 years, is not on the map. Even the UN General Assembly partition lines of November 29, 1947 marking a Jewish and Arab state, which pre-date this 1948 map, do not appear.
(http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/images/resources/list_4/01-m-map-with-flags.jpg)
-
Just curious.
2 questions
1- does the UN print all its maps in Arabic?
2- Do they give all their maps that "old & soiled" look?
would love to know the actual context on why it was displayed
-
Yes, there's probably alot more to the story.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Just curious.
2 questions
1- does the UN print all its maps in Arabic?
2- Do they give all their maps that "old & soiled" look?
would love to know the actual context on why it was displayed
All I can tell you is this came from today's "Wall street journal."
The map was used in last month's annual U.N. Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People
-
See Rule #7
-
UN.. a bad idea that continues to fester to this day... we need to get the US OUT of the UN and get the UN The hell out of the US!
-
you can always relocate the UN to the french capital, ghent.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
See Rule #7
Hah.
The Houston Texans are worse.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Just curious.
2 questions
1- does the UN print all its maps in Arabic?
2- Do they give all their maps that "old & soiled" look?
would love to know the actual context on why it was displayed
The main map is a physical map, which as anyone should know doesn't show political boundaries anyway. I can't make out the smaller map, but I would suggest that from the apparent age it is a map of the pre-partition mandate territory of Palestine, possibly showing the names of Arab villages that no longer exist.
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population....Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
Anyone know who said these words? It was David Ben Gurion, the founder of the modern Israeli state.
As for the UN endorsing the removal of Israel? Give me a break. Here is a Link (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm10236.doc.htm) to the statement from the UN General Secretary made on the occasion of the U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People referred to above. Can one of you knee jerkers find the part where he endorses the removal of Israel? No, because all you have is one photo of a map with no context provided by a poster who is either too lazy or too bigoted to research before posting such contentious drivel.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
UN.. a bad idea that continues to fester to this day... we need to get the US OUT of the UN and get the UN The hell out of the US!
Ahh.. the birth of a new fascistic state.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Ahh.. the birth of a new fascistic state.
:aok
1930s reapeating all over again, WWIII starts:p
oh wait, WWIII already started!
-
Yes, lets drop the UN and let the US take charge of all international affairs. :aok
We need someone that can act, and not just sit around debating. We dont need a forum were all nations can sit down and discuss problems.. we need ACTION!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, lets drop the UN and let the US take charge of all international affairs. :aok
We need someone that can act, and not just sit around debating. We dont need a forum were all nations can sit down and discuss problems.. we need ACTION!
I LIKE the way you think, Nilsen.
-
Well, in defense of our national policies I would like to remind those interested that a few days ago we "celebrated" the 64th anniversary of the end of an isolationist approach to safety, security and prosperity.
Live and let live? Don't get involved? Nah. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. History can teach us many things, not the least of which is "be proactive" and that civil discussion with uncivilized people will accomplish nothing.
-
lols.
I'll resume this thread:
1- initial poster lights the fire by displaying an out of context picture.
2 - The usual bandwagon of nitwits come in screaming "DEATH TO TEH UN!!!"
3 - Momus makes sense... as usual, no one listens to him.
4 - storch is looking for a spanking :D
clap clap clap! Another intardnet wasted bandwith!
-
This is no place for free-thinkers, tree-huggers or peace-lovers Saintaw!! get with the progamme frenchie!!! :mad:
:D
-
Originally posted by VOR
Live and let live? Don't get involved? Nah. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. History can teach us many things, not the least of which is "be proactive" and that civil discussion with uncivilized people will accomplish nothing.
Well... the US was involved in embargo against japanese..
Doesn't sound so isolationistic politics..
-
momus is probly correct on the map thing but then...
That is no reason to not move the UN to finland. And certainly no reason to not bash the evil organization.
lazs
-
The Un is like a fart in a crowded bar. No one openly wants to claim it, but most everyone wants to fan it away. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The Un is like a fart in a crowded bar. No one openly wants to claim it, but most everyone wants to fan it away. :)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It looks like the UN has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran. Its no wonder some of us do not trust their judgement. I certainly hope Bolton can push through the reforms he is working on, but I doubt it.
(http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/images/resources/list_4/02-m-map.jpg)
This map was prominently displayed by the UN on November 29, 2005 at a public gathering at UN Headquarters, in the presence of all top three UN officials, the Secretary General, and the Presidents of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. It purports to be a "map of Palestine." Israel, a UN member state for 56 years, is not on the map. Even the UN General Assembly partition lines of November 29, 1947 marking a Jewish and Arab state, which pre-date this 1948 map, do not appear.
(http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/images/resources/list_4/01-m-map-with-flags.jpg)
Sweet bait, whre'd you buy it at?
Karaya
-
5 - Karaya makes this thread much more readable by quoting a wall of... pic'shures.
bravo, you are contributing! :D
-
Originally posted by Momus--
As for the UN endorsing the removal of Israel? Give me a break. Here is a Link (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm10236.doc.htm) to the statement from the UN General Secretary made on the occasion of the U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People referred to above. Can one of you knee jerkers find the part where he endorses the removal of Israel? No, because all you have is one photo of a map with no context provided by a poster who is either too lazy or too bigoted to research before posting such contentious drivel.
"Even the UN General Assembly partition lines of November 29, 1947 marking a Jewish and Arab state, which pre-date this 1948 map, do not appear. "
Give me a break, they host an official day
"U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People"
And prominently display a map without Israel on it. That may not be an endorsment but it is a blatant way to take sides.
Is that the UN's job?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Sweet bait, whre'd you buy it at?
Karaya
buy it?
It came from the official photos at the UN.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
buy it?
It came from the official photos at the UN.
No, you said it was from the "Wall Street Journal".
Is the bait from Wal-Mart?
Karaya
-
Since when does the Wall Street Journal use photographs?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Krusher
"Even the UN General Assembly partition lines of November 29, 1947 marking a Jewish and Arab state, which pre-date this 1948 map, do not appear. "
Give me a break, they host an official day
"U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People"
And prominently display a map without Israel on it. That may not be an endorsment but it is a blatant way to take sides.
Well seeing that Israel originally based the legitimacy of its founding on a 1947 decision by the UN General Assembly, and given that the same assembly later made a decision to mark November 29th as International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, I'm not sure what your problem is, other than to be quite selective as to which UNGA decisions you respect and which ones you don't.
Do you have an equal problem with the UN designating 27th January as the Annual Holocaust Memorial Day?
The map in question is an historical record, not a statement of intent. As I posted above, you won't find a modern map that shows the extent of the impact on the Arab population that the 1947 partition had.
If you insist on sticking to your initial statement that by hosting this event the UN "has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran", doubtless you can produce other evidence to this effect other than an unattributed photograph and commentary lifted word for word from an anti-UN website (http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142)?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Since when does the Wall Street Journal use photographs?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Since they reformatted the look of it few Years back.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Since when does the Wall Street Journal use photographs?
-- Todd/Leviathn
It was from the opinionjournal online a wallstreet journal editorial site. and after a second look they did not publish them they linked them.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I'm not sure what your problem is, other than to be quite selective as to which UNGA decisions you respect and which ones you don't.
Do you have an equal problem with the UN designating 27th January as the Annual Holocaust Memorial Day?
The map in question is an historical record, not a statement of intent. As I posted above, you won't find a modern map that shows the extent of the impact on the Arab population that the 1947 partition had.
If you insist on sticking to your initial statement that by hosting this event the UN "has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran", doubtless you can produce other evidence to this effect other than an unattributed photograph and commentary lifted word for word from an anti-UN website (http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142)?
It is not selective at all, you are speculating on something not stated.
I would have a problem with holocaust memorial day if they put up a map that showed Israel in place of Germany.
The intent is clear, we (the UN) have no credibility when it comes to a two state solution.
Maybe you should post the exact quote before playing lawyer
I said quote:
"It looks like the UN has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran."
The current leader of Iran has:
Called for Israel's destruction
That the Jewish state should be moved to Europe if the West wants to make up for the Holocaust.
In October that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."
So to discredit the picture you discredit the source. How nice, would a video help?
3 min long, but it shows the same thing.
Link (http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=143)
If you believe the UN had no intent behind its picture, thats fine and dandy. It is clear to me this was an intentional slap at Israel.
-
It looks like the UN has the same opinion of Israel as the current leader of Iran."
The current leader of Iran has:
Called for Israel's destruction
That the Jewish state should be moved to Europe if the West wants to make up for the Holocaust.
In October that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."
Fine, now show me where the UN has ever indicated anything approaching what the new President of Iran is advocating.
All you have is an out of context photograph to support your statement that the UN=Iran on this issue.
If I'm wrong then you should able to provide more evidence that supports your statement. Lets have it.
So to discredit the picture you discredit the source.
The source is relevant when you wrongly claim it is the WSJ rather than an anti-UN activist site with little interest in providing any context that deviates from its agenda.
-
What is the date of those two photos?
-
Fine, now show me where the UN has ever indicated anything approaching what the new President of Iran is advocating.
I can do that.
See. The UN has done nothing to stop them. They are practically giving Iran full play to do what they want.
-
when Israel takes out Iran's nuke plant and every islam lovin country jumps her and we side with Israel, what side will the UN take then?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Fine, now show me where the UN has ever indicated anything approaching what the new President of Iran is advocating.
All you have is an out of context photograph to support your statement that the UN=Iran on this issue.
If I'm wrong then you should able to provide more evidence that supports your statement. Lets have it.
The source is relevant when you wrongly claim it is the WSJ rather than an anti-UN activist site with little interest in providing any context that deviates from its agenda.
You seem to be missing the point, I would draw a picture, but you might consider it out of context.
So the video link was still not good enough?
If you are wrong I could care less.
I have no need to prove it one way or the other because they (the UN) held a confrence with a map that did not include israel.
My opinion of the UN has been posted many times on this site.
They are a biased, corrupt, unprofessional and not worthy of US support.
-
whoops 2
-
Fine Krusher, you can't back up your assertion with anything other than single photograph irrespective of context and irrespective of statements made by the UN Secretary General on the subject.
You claim that the UN has no business in organising a day in memory of the plight of the palestinians yet have no problem with the UN doing the same thing in memory of the Holocaust.
You portray a map as a "UN map" when in fact it is an Arab map dating from the late 1940's.
You falsely claim that you are quoting the WSJ when in fact you are quoting an anti-UN website cited in a partisan Op-Ed piece (http://http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007670).
Were the contents of the map that you have such a problem with endorsed by the UN General Assembly or the UN security Council? If not, then you can't claim that it's content represents the collective opinion of the UN anymore than you could claim that statements by John Bolton made on the floor of the UN represent the collective will of the UN.
You made a statement loaded with hyperbole that you can't back up, bottom line.
I'm through debating this with you unless you can give verifiable evidence to support your suggestion that the UN and Iran have a common policy on Israel.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Fine Krusher, you can't back up your assertion with anything other than single photograph irrespective of context and irrespective of statements made by the UN Secretary General on the subject.
You claim that the UN has no business in organising a day in memory of the plight of the palestinians yet have no problem with the UN doing the same thing in memory of the Holocaust.
You portray a map as a "UN map" when in fact it is an Arab map dating from the late 1940's.
You falsely claim that you are quoting the WSJ when in fact you are quoting an anti-UN website cited in a partisan Op-Ed piece (http://http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007670).
Were the contents of the map that you have such a problem with endorsed by the UN General Assembly or the UN security Council? If not, then you can't claim that it's content represents the collective opinion of the UN anymore than you could claim that statements by John Bolton made on the floor of the UN represent the collective will of the UN.
You made a statement loaded with hyperbole that you can't back up, bottom line.
I'm through debating this with you unless you can give verifiable evidence to support your suggestion that the UN and Iran have a common policy on Israel.
Again, I posted a video link that shows the same thing but you so far have decided to harp on the pictures that are valid but you do not like the source.
I said nothing of the sort. what I said was quote:
"I would have a problem with holocaust memorial day if they put up a map that showed Israel in place of Germany. "
I made a statement that leans heavily towards the bias of the UN.
Its a map the UN was using, the date is of no importance. Who made is again not important, the UN used it.
Falsely my butt, I stated the article came form a link in the opinionjournal, a wsj site. Your desire to smoke the issue because you do not like the site is besides the point. The fact that you describe it as an Anti-UN web site speaks for itself. If you don't like the message attack the messenger.
You must be kidding this has nothing to do with my original post, you attempt at that smoke screen is a waste of both of our time.
And you carefully ignored the unacceptable comments made by the leader of Iran while asking for proof of an opinion.
I have no intentions proving a pov.
Did the UN use a map at a UN function that referenced Palestine and ignored Israel.. the answer is yes.
-
"I would have a problem with holocaust memorial day if they put up a map that showed Israel in place of Germany. "
Has Israel ever been where Germany is? Not to my knowledge.
Has Palestine been where Israel is? Yes.
This whole fuss is about a map that shows "Palestine"? It might be news to you, but in early 1948 there was no Israel, but there was a Palestine.
I can't believe that people are taking issue with a 1948 map not showing a country that didn't exist in early 1948.
-
As the US is part of the UN don't you think your blind hate olf the UN make you shot your own foot ?.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Has Palestine been where Israel is? Yes.
Since 1948, Israel rules in the territory.
Before 1918 - 1948, Britain administered the region.
1517 - 1918 territory ruled by Ottoman Turks
1187 - 1516 Ruled from Cairo
1099 -1187 Kingdom of Jeruselem
1071 - 1099 Bagdhad
969 - 1071 Egypt
750 - 969, Bagdhad
661 - 750 Damascus
330 - 661 Byzantine
-63 - 330 Rome
-165 - 63 Maccabees
-333 - -165 Greek
-539 - -333 Persians
-586 - -539 Babylon
-721 - -586 Assyria
-928 division of Isreal and Judah
-965 - -928 King Solomon
-1250 Isrealite defaet Canaanites.
Until Gaza / West Bank of modern times there seems to have never been a country of Palestine.
-
Before 1918 - 1948, Britain administered the region.
Which was called?
Until Gaza / West Bank of modern times there seems to have never been a country of Palestine.
If I can quote the first line from the first British report on the Mandate:
"When General Allenby's army swept over Palestine, in a campaign as brilliant and decisive as any recorded in history, it occupied a country exhausted by war."
The modern attempts to remove the word "Palestine" from history seem rather Orwellian to me. Just how far it's gone can be seen by someone expressing outrage at a 1948 map not having Israel on it, and indeed claiming that Israel has been "removed" from it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Since 1948, Israel rules in the territory.
Before 1918 - 1948, Britain administered the region.
1517 - 1918 territory ruled by Ottoman Turks
1187 - 1516 Ruled from Cairo
1099 -1187 Kingdom of Jeruselem
1071 - 1099 Bagdhad
969 - 1071 Egypt
750 - 969, Bagdhad
661 - 750 Damascus
330 - 661 Byzantine
-63 - 330 Rome
-165 - 63 Maccabees
-333 - -165 Greek
-539 - -333 Persians
-586 - -539 Babylon
-721 - -586 Assyria
-928 division of Isreal and Judah
-965 - -928 King Solomon
-1250 Isrealite defaet Canaanites.
Until Gaza / West Bank of modern times there seems to have never been a country of Palestine.
Hey you left Alamut off your list. That may still be dangerous, you never know...
-
Has Palestine been where Israel is? Yes.
This whole fuss is about a map that shows "Palestine"? It might be news to you, but in early 1948 there was no Israel, but there was a Palestine.
Palestine is a geographical area. Not a description of a people.
It is only recently that people have taken to calling the muslims from that area Palestinians, when they are closer to being Jordanians.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Which was called?
If I can quote the first line from the first British report on the Mandate:
"When General Allenby's army swept over Palestine, in a campaign as brilliant and decisive as any recorded in history, it occupied a country exhausted by war."
The modern attempts to remove the word "Palestine" from history seem rather Orwellian to me. Just how far it's gone can be seen by someone expressing outrage at a 1948 map not having Israel on it, and indeed claiming that Israel has been "removed" from it.
Just because a region is called Kurdistan the moniker does not make it a country.
Palestine was never a country until a few years ago.
-
define a "country" please.
-
Krusher, I watched the video you linked to. What is it supposed to prove?
In response to the inflammatory comments on Israel by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, we saw:
1 - A unanimous condemnation of his comments from the UNSC.
2 - A statement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saying that he was dismayed at the comments and reiterating Israel's right to exist under the terms of the UN Charter.
3 - A statement condemning the comments issued by senior palestinian representative Saeb Erekat.
Did the UN use a map at a UN function that referenced Palestine and ignored Israel.. the answer is yes.
And the presence of that map, irrespective of any context, is the only "fact" you have so far produced to support your slanderous contention. Poor effort really.
Again, please post supporting evidence of your contention that the UN holds the same policy on Israel as that espoused by the president of Iran. Otherwise I have to conclude that your mouth is issuing cheques that your brain can't cash.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It is only recently that people have taken to calling the muslims from that area Palestinians, when they are closer to being Jordanians.
Totally wrong, the region was originally named Palestine after its Philistine inhabitants by the Greeks in the first Millenium BC.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The current leader of Iran has:
...
That the Jewish state should be moved to Europe if the West wants to make up for the Holocaust.
YES PLEASE!
We are sick of the middle east. It's the middle of December and I'm wearing shorts and sweating. Give us about 500x50 km in Europe and we move instantly.
Make room euros, I'm a coma!
Bozon :D
-
Momus , Krusher who the heck you are?
all your posts are in O'club, allways flame bait
-
Originally posted by bozon
YES PLEASE!
We are sick of the middle east. It's the middle of December and I'm wearing shorts and sweating. Give us about 500x50 km in Europe and we move instantly.
Make room euros, I'm a coma!
Bozon :D
You can have Svalbard! Nice and cool plus plenty of fish and russians :)
If there is any sand near you (doh!) then bring a few million tonnes. You will need it to put on the roads so you dont skid into the water and end up in the net of some Russian trawler.
-
Originally posted by bozon
YES PLEASE!
We are sick of the middle east. It's the middle of December and I'm wearing shorts and sweating. Give us about 500x50 km in Europe and we move instantly.
Make room euros, I'm a coma!
Bozon :D
carefull with what you ask , you can end in groeland (afterall it's a part of Danmark :D)
-
shhh straffo!
I'm trying to get rid of Svalbard up in arktika somewere.. dont give him other ideas!!
We also have some land down there in aunt-arktika, but i hear the arktikans are nicer people than the aunt-arktikans.
-
i personally think there should be a "league" or "guild" that meets in a UN style assembly. the differences from the UN are as follows
1. it would be called something cool like the "Global Guild" or the good old "League of Nations" just because it sounds cool.
2. if one of the member nations or non-member nations stepped out of line, all the nations with a non-laughable military would go into the offending country and kick some ass.
it would keep the humanitarian roll that the current UN has but otherwise it would act more like NATO should.
anyone like this idea?
PS
i have designed a complete economic and agricultural design for antarctica. it is completely reliant on penguins, ice and solar power.
-
Not a bad idea SMIDSY. ive often thought abut something similar myself.
If one UN member is attacked, then all others jump on it. All nations should become members. If they want to sit on the council or not is up to them, but the rules and regulations still apply so not sitting on the council would be pointless.
The rules should be simple and easy to undestand for all without a million sub-paragraphs and ways to avoid them.
United Nations is a good enough name.. sais it all really.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
You seem to be missing the point, I would draw a picture, but you might consider it out of context.
So the video link was still not good enough?
If you are wrong I could care less.
I have no need to prove it one way or the other because they (the UN) held a confrence with a map that did not include israel.
My opinion of the UN has been posted many times on this site.
They are a biased, corrupt, unprofessional and not worthy of US support.
No, you are posting file footage of past dated maps. Still, sweet bait. Especially the Arabic writing on the maps. $100 says the pictures are more than 30 years old.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by straffo
carefull with what you ask , you can end in groeland (afterall it's a part of Danmark :D)
Isn't Legoland part of Denmark too?
If we get it, do we get to oppress the Lego people? They seem small and plastiqe - should be easy.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Krusher, I watched the video you linked to. What is it supposed to prove?
In response to the inflammatory comments on Israel by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, we saw:
1 - A unanimous condemnation of his comments from the UNSC.
2 - A statement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saying that he was dismayed at the comments and reiterating Israel's right to exist under the terms of the UN Charter.
3 - A statement condemning the comments issued by senior palestinian representative Saeb Erekat.
And the presence of that map, irrespective of any context, is the only "fact" you have so far produced to support your slanderous contention. Poor effort really.
Again, please post supporting evidence of your contention that the UN holds the same policy on Israel as that espoused by the president of Iran. Otherwise I have to conclude that your mouth is issuing cheques that your brain can't cash.
Huh? you try and disredit the original source, I give you a second and you dismiss it.
slanderous? again you read too much into my post. try and breath in and out in and out. It is my opinion that the UN knew "exactly" what it was doing when it used that map. MY OPINION. you don't like it, to bad for you.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Momus , Krusher who the heck you are?
all your posts are in O'club, allways flame bait
who are you to ask an MP or a wannabe MP?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Huh? you try and disredit the original source, I give you a second and you dismiss it.
No, you initially claimed a reputable source when in fact it was a partisan UN "watchdog" site. For example, the site you linked to doesn't inform the reader that Kofi Annan later apologised for the presence of the map in question and promised to ensure that such an occurance wouldn't take place again. This is important context that was omitted.
slanderous? again you read too much into my post.
No, I read your post just fine the first time and your successive posts too.
It is my opinion that the UN knew "exactly" what it was doing when it used that map.
An opinion that isn't consistent with the facts, namely that the use of the flag wasn't endorsed by any decision-making body of the UN and by the fact that the UN Secretary General later apologised for its presence. That's the same guy who has gone on the record multiple times in condemning the rhetoric that comes from Iran on the subject of Israel, something I can't believe you'd be unaware of if you had any serious interest in the issue.
MY OPINION. you don't like it, to bad for you.
You're entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to express it in an open forum then you should be able to back it up.
So far you haven't.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
No, you initially claimed a reputable source when in fact it was a partisan UN "watchdog" site. For example, the site you linked to doesn't inform the reader that Kofi Annan later apologised for the presence of the map in question and promised to ensure that such an occurance wouldn't take place again. This is important context that was omitted.
No, I read your post just fine the first time and your successive posts too.
An opinion that isn't consistent with the facts, namely that the use of the flag wasn't endorsed by any decision-making body of the UN and by the fact that the UN Secretary General later apologised for its presence. That's the same guy who has gone on the record multiple times in condemning the rhetoric that comes from Iran on the subject of Israel, something I can't believe you'd be unaware of if you had any serious interest in the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to express it in an open forum then you should be able to back it up.
So far you haven't.
it still does not matter what site it came from it was verified by a 2nd site.
Apparently not, you have been trying from post one to make it something it wasn't.
Kofi annan apologized for his sons corruption, that doesn't mean I have to believe him. That map was part of a planned/staged event.
my pov is consistent with what I consider to be a partisan UN anti-Israel/pro Palestinian agenda, this is certainly not the only one.
I am well aware of the secretary generals double speak. As stated above I choose not to believe him.
If you believe a planned event with an Arab flag planted onstage between a un flag was an accident that's your opinion. An apology is not erasing the act.
-
Stop banging your head on th wall Krusher , you make to much noise.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Stop banging your head on th wall Krusher , you make to much noise.
Quit biting at my ankles its an annoying habit of yours.
-
Old map.. made prior to Isreals creation...... is that a Palestinian flag next to the UN one?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
it still does not matter what site it came from it was verified by a 2nd site.
Apparently not, you have been trying from post one to make it something it wasn't.
I pointed out that the site you linked to didn't give the background of the map in question. You still haven't dealt with that point, despite my having added some of the missing context.
That map was part of a planned/staged event.
And you have still to demonstrate any intent on behalf of the UN.
my pov is consistent with what I consider to be a partisan UN anti-Israel/pro Palestinian agenda, this is certainly not the only one.
Good, I'm sure you can post examples to support your case then. Lets have them, along with the ones I am still waiting for to support your claim that the UN shares the Iranian President's desire to remove Israel from the face of the globe. This is the 3rd or 4th time of asking now.
I am well aware of the secretary generals double speak. As stated above I choose not to believe him.
At the risk of repeating myself, let us have examples of what you are referring to in support of your allegation.
If you believe a planned event with an Arab flag planted onstage between a un flag was an accident that's your opinion. An apology is not erasing the act.
You can disregard Annan's claim that he was unaware of the map and his subsequent apology. But so far that map is all you have to support your position in the face of all the other evidence I have supplied to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I pointed out that the site you linked to didn't give the background of the map in question. You still haven't dealt with that point, despite my having added some of the missing context.
And you have still to demonstrate any intent on behalf of the UN.
Good, I'm sure you can post examples to support your case then. Lets have them, along with the ones I am still waiting for to support your claim that the UN shares the Iranian President's desire to remove Israel from the face of the globe. This is the 3rd or 4th time of asking now.
At the risk of repeating myself, let us have examples of what you are referring to in support of your allegation.
You can disregard Annan's claim that he was unaware of the map and his subsequent apology. But so far that map is all you have to support your position in the face of all the other evidence I have supplied to the contrary.
Background? if you need more background to form your opinion on what "looks like" a very biased event, that's none of my concern. I don't have need to provide background for a picture.
As stated, you may not like the my reasoning, but I find the UN to be biased. You found the web site that hosted the jpg to be anti-un, I didn't.
For your review.
Definitions
point of view
noun points of view
1. One's own particular way of looking at or attitude towards something, influenced by personal considerations and experience.
It is my point of view that there is life on other planets. Must I produce a picture of a little green man to prove it?
It is my POV that the Yankees are the best team money can buy. They didn't win the world series, but that is still my POV.
It is my POV that the current leader of Iran seeks the destruction of Israel do we need a mushroom cloud to prove it?
In my Point of view the UN is biased, corrupt and unprofessional.
This conversation is going nowhere repeating ourselves is pointless. Form your own opinion and I will do the same. I will have to "assume" that you disagree.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It is my point of view that there is life on other planets. Must I produce a picture of a little green man to prove it?
You are not comparing like with like. Information on the UN is widely available. Information on alien life is not.
It is my POV that the Yankees are the best team money can buy. They didn't win the world series, but that is still my POV.
Certainly, but if you expressed that opinion you could reasonably be expected to provide a rational argument to support it.
It is my POV that the current leader of Iran seeks the destruction of Israel do we need a mushroom cloud to prove it?
That is quite apparent from his statements and isn't a point of debate here but rather it is your flimsy contention that he is supported in his desire by the UN.
In my Point of view the UN is biased, corrupt and unprofessional.
So you should be able to easily produce examples to that effect in relation to your claim on the UN position regarding Israel's existence.
This conversation is going nowhere repeating ourselves is pointless. Form your own opinion and I will do the same. I will have to "assume" that you disagree.
This conversation is going nowhere because you either refuse or are unable to produce any real evidence to support your wild assertion despite being asked to do so on multiple occasions over the course of several days.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
This conversation is going nowhere because you either refuse or are unable to produce any real evidence to support your wild assertion despite being asked to do so on multiple occasions over the course of several days.
unbelievable
-
Originally posted by Krusher
unbelievable
No it's just you, just how you are.
-
lol.. great thread :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, lets drop the UN and let the US take charge of all international affairs. :aok
We need someone that can act, and not just sit around debating. We dont need a forum were all nations can sit down and discuss problems.. we need ACTION!
ummm ... i might try it next time, when i meet some pretty gal.
It might be useful, thx for tip :D
-
hey i have some 50+ years old maps as well.... shall shot myself, because Israel whitch has been annihilated 2000 years ago is not on those maps ?
lol that made me laugh when i read this week that "israel have right to be there, because ancient israel was there 2000 years ago"
I want our empire back ( its our right we had it ONLY 500 years ago !!!! ) :D
-
While formal Israel might not have been there, Jews have always lived there.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
While formal Israel might not have been there, Jews have always lived there.
so they is no point to changing it... is there ?
hell yeah .. before israel, jews lived all around the ME w/o problems and some of them do even today....
but then we had some smart^$%#^mother$*(^^%#&* (namely UK) decided to determine whats best for region and fun begun.
pre 1923 Palestine was quite ok, untill british tried to be smart and fubared it.
( or not ? )
Btw we had probably biggest jews comunity in europe before ww2 here. They has been here for some 1000 years.. or ..so...
Yet nobody see any single reason, why should they establish country overhere.
-
What I want to know is when there will be a F1 race in Israel. its way overdue imo.
-
Originally posted by straffo
No it's just you, just how you are.
Still after my ankles I see.